








.-^'^ 



^■/ \-^-?:\/ V^^-/ \-^^\* 

'* -'^^ %.** ••^'' ^^/ •*^^"- %.** ' 









^^-^."^ 











c 






/% 









«5 "x. :■; 






'^^<^' 



^-.^' 






■*b 



o . t • /V 







^-^ 

C" ♦' 
















r 



■O • A " /V 










^ % 







/..^:^-*°^ y.-^^X /.c^.% 









^>t.cV 



.-i-^ . 



.^ .. 




• . o - ^0'' ''^ * • i -1 • * ^"^ 

■^^^* -. ,- ^^ 







C0\» 




// \:j -/ .^^^ 






REMARKS 



ON A 



DANGEROUS MISTAKE 



MADE AS TO THE 



eastern BounDarp 



OF 



]LOUISIANA, 



'-*% 



BOSTON : 

PRINTED BY J. T. BUCKINGHAM. 

November, 1814. 






DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, to wit ; 

District Clerk's Office. 
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the ninth day of November, A. D. ]814, and in the thiity- 
niiith year of the Iiidepeudeuce of the United States of America, Joseph T. Buckingham, of the 
said District, has deposited in this office the Title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as Pro- 
prietor, in the words following, to tuit : 

" Remarks on a Dangerous Mistake made as to the Eastern Boundary of Louisiana." 
In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, " An Act for the En- 
couragement of Learning, by securin? the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and 
Proprietors of such Copies, during the times therein m&jtioned ;" and also to an Act entitled, 
" An Act supplementary to an Act, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learnings, by se- 
ciu-ing the Copies of Maps. Chaits, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies dur- 
ing the times tlierein mentioned ; and extending the Benefits thereof to the Arts of Designing, 
Engraving, and Etching Historical and other Ptmts," 

WILLIAM S. SHAW, 

Clerk of the District of Massachusetts.. 



REMARKS, &c. 



A DISPUTE has taken place between Spain and the United States 
arising out of the purchase made by the latter of Louisiana and 
the little island oi JVew-Orleans, which is connected with it. Be- 
fore we treat of this dispute, we must notice some general facts. 

These two colonies once belonged to France, and formed the 
basis of the speculations of the famous French Mississippi compa- 
ny under Mr. Law. For reasons hereafter to be mentioned, France 
voluntarily gave both of them to Spain, on November 3, 1762 ; the 
very day when both parties signed the preliminaries of the peace 
of 1762-3 with England. While Spain still remained in posses- 
sion of these two colonies, difficulties firior to that just alluded to 
had occurred between herself and the United States ; namely, as 
to our southern boundary, as to our navigation of the Mississippi, 
and as to a place for depositing the goods of our citizens navigat- 
ing that great river. These more cai ly concerns together with 
others were the occasion of the treaty of Oct. 27, 1795, between 
Spain and the United States. But five years afterwards (namely, 
on Sept. 30, 1 800) Spain was directed by Bonaparte to make over 
to him Louisiana and New-Orleans, in exchange for some pre- 
tended grants in Italy. On the 30th of April, 1803, Bonaparte, in 
order to raise Si 1,750,000 in cash, and to prevent the seizure of 
these colonies by England sold both of them to the United States 
for §15,000,000 ; the difference, (or one quarter part) of the orig- 
inal purchase money being reserved to pay the demands of Ameri- 
can claimants on the French government. The United States, be- 
ing thus possessed of Louisiana and New-Orleans, endeavoured to 
make the boundaries of Louisiana extend into West Florida Cwhich, 



together with East Florida, had long belonged to Spain) and, in 
the event, took military possession of the districts, which they 
claimed there.* This last is the subject of dispute now to be dis- 
cussed. 

As we presume, that our administration has taken very ques- 
tionable ground on this occasion, we shall endeavour to prove the 
justness of this opinion in what follows; ranging our materials un- 
der several heads, from which we shall draw the necessary conclu- 
sions. 

I. An account of the form of the tramfer of Louisiana and 
Mew-Orleans to the United States, as made by Bonaparte in 
1803. 

In the above named treaty of purchase dated April 30th, 1803, 
we read thus : « Art. 1st. Whereas by the third article of the trea- 
ty concluded at St. Ildefonso on the 9th Vindemiaire, an. IX. [or 
Oct. 1, IbOO] between the first consul of the French repubJick 
and his Catholick Majesty [the King of Spain ;] it was agreed as 
follows : ' His Catholick Majesty promises and engages on his 
jiart to cede to the French Refiublick, six months after (he full and 
entire execution of the conditions and stimulations relative to his 
Royal Highness the Duke of Parma,^ the coLour or province 
OF Louisiana, with the extent that it has in the hands of Sfiain^ 
a?id that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should 
deX after the treaties suBSE'iUENQ'Lr entered into between Spain 
and OTHER states :' and whereas in pursuance of the [abovej 

* If theclaim of our administration goes eastward as far as the river Per- 
dido, (which lies between 'TNIobile and Pensacola) this is above 240 English 
miles in an air line from the bank of the Mississippi, and the average depth 
of this tract from north to south is above 50 English miles. See Mr. Elli- 
cott's map, E. or No. 5, as given in his Journal, of which more will be said 
hereafter. 

I The Duke of Parma was one of the King of Spain's family and was 
made king of Etruria (or Tuscany.) This is the pretended Italian grant 
just spoken of. How far Bonapai-te fulfilled the promise to his widow, 
(who was daughter to the King of Spain) except as to her mere title, is 
well known, for she was not only driven from her nominal khigdom but 
imprisoned, wliile Bonaparte obtained the value of §15,000,000 as tlie 
equivalent of this pretended grant. * 

4 Say rather (pursuant to tlie original French, doit eire) such as it ought 
to be : that is, such as it became after the treaties, which occurred while it 
belonged to Spam. N. B. The treaty slates, that the articles were agreed 
to in the French language. 



treaty (and particularly of the third article) the French republick 
has an incontestible title to the domain and to the possession of the 
said territory ; the first consul of the French republick (desiring 
to give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship) doth 
hereby cede to the said United States in the name of the French 
republick forever and in full sovereignty the said territory (w^itli 
all its rights and appurtenances) as fulkj and in the same manner 
as they have been acouired by the French republick in virtue 
of the above mentioned treaty concluded tvifh his Calholick Majes' 
ty. Art. 2d. In the cession made by the preceding article are in- 
cluded the adjacent islands belonging to Louisiana, 8cc. Art. 3d. 
* * * The commissary of the French republick shall remit all 
military posts of New-Orleans and other parts of the ceded terri- 
tory to the commissary or commissaries named by the President 
of the United States." 

This is the origin and nature of the title of the United States to 
Louisiana and New-Orleans. 

But it is to be observed, first, that JVctj- Orleans is no where 
referred to in the above treaty or in the two documents which fol- 
low it, unless as an " island" belonging to Louisiana, or as a mere 
fiart of Louisiana. 

Secondly, The cession at large here referred to was limited by 
three conditions. 1st. The whole territory was ceded to us ex- 
actly as Spain then held it. 2d. It was ceded to us exactly as 
France had held it under its monarchy ; but subject to the effect 
of Spanish treaties made after Spain had come into possession. 
3d. It was ceded to us exactly in the form in which the French 
republick hvid recently acquired it from Sfiain (nameiy in 1800.) 
The remark is obvious, that these conditions are all to be inter- 
preted consistently with each other. 

These latter observations will be belter understood, when v. e 
discover the whole of the circumstances, which occasioned iiiTii5.s 
to be put to the old extent of liouisiana to the east, and when \\ • 
comment more at large on the above treaty. 

II. ^« account of the cession of the Spanish clai.'ni to f/ie 
Floridas inade to England in 1762-.?. 

It is to be observed, that, if France formerly sought to ixte;.c; t! o 
bounds of Louisiana towards Florida,* Spain also soui^ht to p'l ;; 

* Florida, as \vc shall find, .it fii-st, had not been di^■idcd into ll.isl a:Kl 
West Florida, and its dimensions, at tliat period, wei-e far inferior to tho.-^.: 
of the two niodcni Floridas united. 



the bounds of Florida towards Louisiana. Tire treaty of 1762-3^ 
however, between France, Spain, and England operated in a man- 
ner which instantly put this point out of sight, for it made the Mis- 
sissippi the boundary between Louisiana and the modern Floridas, 
but yet so as to give New-Orleans tolvouisiana (for we shall here- 
after show, that New-Orieans may in one sense be considered as 
an island formed by two legs of the Mississipfii and the sea.) 

We are now, however, to produce certain passages from this 
treaty of 1762-3 (both in its preliminary and in its definitive form) 
which were designed to establish the new extent of Florida on one 
side, and to prevent any excess in the extent of Louisiana on the 
other ; and which particularly did so by the authority ot S/iaiUf 
(who, at this moment, had virtually become proprietor of both 
countries.) 

In the fireliminary treaty, signed on Nov. 3d, 1762, by the min- 
isters of England, France, and Spain in one instrument, and which 
was soon after ratified according to an original agreement contain- 
ed in an article in the treaty; (circumstances, which have bearings 
to be noticed hereafter ;) Spain declares as follows : Art. XIX. 
" In consequence of the restitution stipulated in the preceding ar- 
ticle, [that is, of the Havanna and of Cuba*] his Catholick majesty 
[the king of Spain] cedes and guarantees in full right to his Brit- 
anick majesty, all that Sjiain possesses on the continent of North 
America to the east or to the south east\ of the river Mississippi." 

The definitive treaty between the same parties (which was 
equally signed in one instrument, namely, on Feb. ^Oth, 1763, and 
equally ratified) speaks of tliis cession from Spain to England, in 
t!ic manner which follows, in its XXth article. " In consequence 
of the restitution stipulated in the preceding article, [that is, of 
Cuba, Sec ] his Catholick majesty cedes and guarayitees in full 
ri'^ht to his Britannick majesty, Florida, (with fort St. Augustine 
and the bay of Pensacola) as ivell as all that Spain possesses on 
the continent of North America to the east or to the south east of 
t'lie river Mississippi ; (and, in general, every thing that depends 
on the same countries, with the sovereignty., profiertyy possession, 
and all rights acquired by treaties or othervjise^ which the Catho- 

* At the date of this treaiy, the captv.re of tha IManillas was not known. 
Besides, they wtrc iinniedi.'iteiy g-'iven up on ransom. 

I Part of East Elorida and aonio islauds lie to the southward and east- 
\v:;rd of the Mississi])pi. 



lick king and tlie crowJi of Spain have had till now over the said 
countries, lands, places and their inhabitants, so that the Caiho- 
lick king cedes and makes over the whole to the said king and to 
the crown of Great Britain, and that in the most ample form and 
manner.)" 

Thus S/iain gave to England not only ancient Florida by naine^ 
but whatever else it might possess to the east or south cast of 
the Mississififii. This was not a vain gift, for as she had been 
made, at the moment, proprietor of Louisiana by France, she could 
make or confirm whatever cessions she pleased, out of Louisiana, 
on the eastern side, in addition to the cession of Florida. Of the 
circumstances of this grant from France to S'fiain of Louisiana, we 
shall soon learn more minute particulars. In the mean time, we 
pass on to a new point. 

III. An account of a similar form of cession made by France to 
England, respecting the Floridas, by means of the same treaty 
of 1762-3. 

At the time of making the fireliminaries of this treaty, it does not 
appear that Fngland was officially informed, that France had en- 
gaged to give Louisiana to Spain ; and England certainly could 
not know that Spain had accented the offer, s^ce that acceptance 
did not occur till ten days after these preliminaries were signed. 
Spain and France, therefore, spoke in this treaty as if no such offer 
had been made ; each separately conveying any claim which it 
might have to the Florida territory, taken in its largest modern 
sense ; and also separately guaranteeing in its separate cession, 
what, in some cases, could only belong to one of them : but as the 
conveyances by each of them stood in one common instrument, 
each acted with the privity of the other, and this privity of the 
other gave force to the acts of each of them. 

The cession on this occassion by France to England was made 
virtually in the same words, both by the preliminary, and by the 
definitive treaty of 1762-3 ; but we shall copy the article in ques- 
tion from the preliminary treaty, (as it was ratified,) since it was 
in truth contemporary with the act of cession of Louisiana from 
France to Spain, which was itself, as has been said, dated Nov. 3, 
1762. The article in question follows. « Art. VI. In order to 
re-establish peace on the most solid and lasting foundations, and 
to remove every subject of dispute with regard to the limits of the 
British and French territories on the continent of America ; it is 



8 

agreed, that, for the future, the confines between the dominions of 
his Biitannick majesty, and those of his most Christian majesty, 
[that is, the king of France] in that part of the world, shall be 
irrevocably fixed by a line drawn along tfie middle of the river 
Mississippi from its source, as far as the river Iberville, and from 
thence by a line drawn along the middle of this river, fthat is, the 
Iberville] and that of the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the 
sea.* And to this purpose, the most Christian king cedes in full 
riglit, and guarantees to his Britannick majesty, the river and 
port of Mobile and every thing that he possesses, or ought to 
have possessedf on the left:^ side of the river Mississippi; excefit 
the town of New-Orleans, and theislandin whichit is situated, which 
shall remain to France ;|) Provided, that the navigation of the river 
Miasinsipiii- shall be equally free as well to the subjects of Great 
Britain as to those of France, in its whole length and breadth, from 
its source to the sea, (and that part expressly, which is between the 
said island of New-Orleans and the right bank of the river) as 
•well as the passage both in- and out of its mouth. It is further stip- 
ulated that the vessels belonging to the subjects of either nation 
shall not be stopped, visited, or subject to the payment of any duty 
whatever.''^ 

* The river IMississippi furnishing the waters of the Iberville, and the 
Iberville running' through the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea, 
we are at liberty to conceive of the island of New-Orleans as formed by a 
fork of the ISIississippi and the sea ; the several rivers which run either into 
the Iberville or the above lakes, being then considered merely as tributary 
waters to the Mississippi. H.nce, it becomes natural to treat the island of 
New-0 .leans sometimes as an appendage, and sometimes as a part of Lou- 
isiana, which, in its more limited shape, had the Mississippi for its eastern 
boundary. 

\ The definitive treaty says, " ought to possess," in the present tense. 

4: If a man stands in a boat with his back toward the higher part of a 
river, and looks down it, the bank to his left is called the left bank, and the 
other, the right bank. 

II Thus New-Orleans was the only object excepted, to the east of the Mis- 
sissippi. 

§ For the preliminaries of the treaty between France, Spain and England, 
dated Nov. 3, 1762, see Debrett's Collection of Treaties, (preceded by Mr. 
Charles Jenkinson's Discourse) Vol. III. 166. For the definitive treaty 
which followed these premliminai-ies on Feb. 10th, 1763, see the Annual 
Register of the preceding year (1762, page 333,) or any CoUectioa of Mod- 
ern Treaties, as Debrett's, lU. 177, or that of Chalmers, II. 229. 



IV. jin account of the firoceedings of Great Britahi as to the 
two Floridas. 

The territory thus given up to England by Spain (as lying be- 
tween the eastern bank of the Mississippi and the sea to the east 
and south ;) and at the same moment also by France (as extend- 
ing from the middle both of the Mississippi and of the boundary 
waters of New-Orleans in an easterly direction indefinitely, but 
so as to reach the Mobile or Tombeeky ;) this territory, we say, 
was thrown by England into one general mass, and was then 
(by a proclamation of the king England, dated October 7, 1763) 
divided into ^as? Florida and PFes^ Florida.* The 6ouwrfart/ of each 
part, however, is merely to be held as the boundary of a provin- 
cial government, and subject to internal changes. But, as regards 
foreign transactions, the northern boundaries proclaimed in 1763 
were adhered to with respect to the United States in 1782, and 
with respect to Spain in 1783 ; as will immediately be stated. 
As to the southern boundary of the two Floridas, it reached like 
the northern from the Mississippi to the Atlantic k. 

It was at the close of the American war that Great Britain a- 
bandoned to S^iain the territory which she had thus divided into 
East and West Florida. The definitive treaty with Spain in 1783 
expresses the surrender thus : ' His Britannick Majesty likewise 
cedes and guarantees to his Catholick Majesty [that is, the king 
of Spain] East Florida as also West Florida.' 

It is important to mention this cession, for as Louisiana and 
New Orleans join line and line to the Floridas to the west, with- 
out any intermediate territory, their boundaries in that quarter 
are one and the same, so that to name the boundary of the one is 
to indicate that of the other. 

By the above cession to Spain, the concern of Great Britain 
with the Florida boundaries became terminated. 

But we are now to add (and it is a matter interesting to the histo- 
ry of the United States) that, previous to this cession. Great Britain 
had agreed, that the boundaries of the two Floridas to the north 
should become the boundaries of the United States \.o \.he, %o\x\.h. 
She had full right to fix on this line, the provisional articles of 
her peace with the United States having been signed on Novem- 
ber 30, 1782, and also ratified before the signature of the above 

* Sec note A. ;xt the end. 



10 

preliminaries of peace with Spain in 1783.* Spain herself, also, 
as the proprietor of the Floridas, again accepted these boundaries 
in 1795, as will immediately be mentioned, and thus the transac- 
tion as to the boundaries was fully confirmed, as regards the Unit- 
ed States. 

V. An account of the joint and sefiarate firoceedings of Sfiain 

and the United States, as to the two Floridas^ previously to 

1800 and 1803. 

In the treaty between ourselves and Spain dated 1795, noticed 
above (entitled a Treaty of friendship, limits., and navigation,) it 
was decided that the boundary between the United States and the 
two Floridas should be thus ' designated.' The line was to have 
its BEGINNING ON THE RIVER MISSISSIPPI, in N. lat. 31° ; thence 
to be drawn to the middle of the river Apalachicoia (or Cata- 
houche ;) thence along the middle of that river to its junction 
with the Flint [river] thence directly to the head of St. Mary's 
river ; and thence down the middle of that river to the Atlantick 
Ocean.^ These boundaries, as we have intimated, have been u- 
nanimously agreed upon by Great Britain, Spain, and the United 
States, as the common boundaries of the United States and of the 
Floridas, in the points where they touch each other, namely from 
the Mississippi to the Atlantick ocean. 

The Spanish territory here in question was called by the first 
article of the above treaty of 1795, 'the Spanish colonies of East 
and West Florida' and by its 3d and 5th articles they were called 
" the Tivo Floridas" which names, therefore, are to be held as 
mutually received by Spain and the United States in the senses 
"which they naturally bear. 

These territories (as we have seen) had, moreover, passed into 
the hands of Spain, in 1783, by a British title ; which title had the 
peculiar advantage of extinguishing the old French claims to ev- 
ery part of them. This convenience must have been the cause 
which induced the Spanish court to adopt the division and the 

* See the provisional articles of peace between the United States and 
C;reat Britain in Gordon's History of the American Revolutionai-y War, 
vol. IV. 360. They are to be found also iu some of the collections of the 
Laws of the United States. 

■j- See the treaty of 1795 in various collections of the Laws of the United 
States. 



il 

names provided for these territories by the British proclarnation 
of 1763 ; for in the maps of D'Anville and many others we find 
mention made of Floride or Florida in the singular number, and 
where this happened Louisiana at the same time was commonly 
made to cover a large space of country to the east of the Missis- 
sippi. This remark is of some moment in the present controver- 
sy, as a total change has taken place on this subject when the 
Floridas have become spoken of in the plural number, and Louis- 
iana stands limited to the east by the Mississippi. But to return 
to the treaty of 1795. 

This treaty of 1795 was not content with merely « designating" 
the course of the boundary between the United States and the 
Floridas ; for it directed the appointment of a commissioner and 
a surveyor by each government, in order " to run and mark this 
boundary." It added ; ' they shall make plats [or maps] and 
keep journals of their proceedings, which shall be considered as 
part of this convention [or treaty] and shall have the same force 
as if the same were inserted therein.' 

A private journal by Mr. Andrew EUicott (the American com- 
missioner, who was employed between 1796 and 1800 in the pros- 
ecution of this concern) has long been before the publick, accom- 
panied with maps and an Appendix. From this work (printed at 
Philadelphia in 1803 and containing 450 quarto pages) the follow- 
ing particulars are selected, which doubtless found a place in his 
official report. 1 . A post or pillar was erected eighty-eight French 
feet from the margin of the Mississippi in N. lat. 31°, with Span- 
ish memorials on its southern face and American memorials on 
its northern face. At the same time, marks, mounds, stones or 
posts were suitably placed in the course of the survey along the 
rest of the boundary, and particularly in cases where astronomical 
facts were to be recorded (on which the survey was chiefly found- 
ed.) 2. Though the series of the miles measured was numbered 
in an easterly course, from the utmost bounds to which the annual 
inundation of the Mississippi extended on the eastern side in 31° 
N. lat. yet an opportunity was taken to carry back this line to the 
very margin of the river ; and this margin was found to be two 
miles and one hundred and eighty rods distant to the west from 
the above '■^ high -water mark." 3. Plats and journals duly au- 
thenticated appear to have been furnished pursuant to the treaty. 
4. After the report of the work performed was agreed to, posses- 



12 

sion of the territory was either held, or after a certain time assum- 
ed, by the respective parties in conformity to the line thus run.* 

Three other circumstances resting on the evidence of Mr. Elli- 
cott may now be noticed to advantage ; and they will be given 
according to the order of time, in which they occurred. 

1. This gentleman, who collected on the spot, during his offi- 
cial operations, the history of what he relates, informs us, « that the 
country on the east of the Mississippi and north of the island of 
Orleans was peaceably possessed from the peace of 1763, till 
after the commencement of our revolutionary war in the year 
1775, by Great Britain." This possession by the British oi. 
the western parts of West Florida, during this period, shows the 
efficacy of the treaty of 1762-3, which gave the two Floridas to the 
British.t 

2. At the commenceinent of our revolutionary ivar Great Brit- 
ain still held the south-ivest part of the present territory of the U.. 
States, and she continued to hold it until 1779, when it was sur- 
rendered, not to us, but to a military force of the Spaniards, who 
had then become our allies. Though the claim of Great Britain 
to these districts was finally abandoned to us by the provisional 
articles of our peace of November 30, 1782, yet Sfiain remained 
in possession till the lines between the United States and the Flor- 
idas were on the point of being run, pursuant to the treaty of 1795; 
a part of the inhabitants being in favour of her government.^ 

3. The treaty, by which we afterwards purchased the title of 
Bonaparte to -LoznV,fa?m, was dated April 30, 1803, and Mr. Elli- 
cott thus interprets its principal article, within three months after 
its date at Paris. " It does not appear (he says) by the cession of 
Louisiana to the United States, that we obtain the whole of both 
sides of the Mississippi, for by consulting No. 5 of the maps, it 

* The authority for \hefour assertions in this paragraph will be found 
in Mr. Ellicott's work as follows : Consult, for x\rticle 1, his Appendix, p^ 
49 — 57, and particularly tlie report by William Dunbar, esq. who acted 
for tne king of Spain. For Art. 2, consult the Appendix, p. 55, 56 and 
map Xo. 2. For Art. 3, consult the Journal, p. [193, 194,] [278, 279,] and 
[296.] For Art. 4, consult the Journal, p. [129 — 133] and many other pas- 
sages. 

j See the Journal, p. [129 — 133] and many other passages. 

t See many pai'ts of the Joiu-nal. Indeed Mr. EUicott seems to have 
been a principal agent in procuring the evacuation of the countr}^ l)y the 
Spaniards, while on his Vz-ay to run the boundary. 



13 

will be seen, that the island of New Orleans (which lies on the 
east side of the Mississippi) only extends north to Manshack.* 
From thence^ northerly (along the east side of the river) to the 
northern boundary of the United States, is still held by his 
Catholick Majesty as a part of West Florida." This opinion, 
it is to be observed, is given in a preface to the above work, bear- 
ing date July 23, 1803 ; and as it proceeds from the commissioner 
appointed by our administration for settling this very boundary, it 
is invaluable, since he was fully informed of facts from history, 
from treaties, from local information, and from communications 
received from his own government. It is, in short, the testimony 
of an official and intelligent man given impartially. It is also not 
pronounced once only, but he several times repeats it in different 
shapes. 

What has disturbed this respect and deference on our side once 
paid to the Spanish rights in this quarter, will be inquired into 
under our next head. 

VI. An account of the firoceedings of the United States after 
their acquisition of Louisiana in 1803. 

As soon as the United States had acquired Louisiana, the boun- 
daries of the Floridas were contemplated under a new aspect by 
our administration. It was no longer upon the bounds to Louisia- 
na derived from reiiublican France that they chose to rest, but on 
the bounds once set up by France under its monarchy, for these 
latter bounds (as they thought) would secure to them the western 
parts of West Florida. 

Under colour of this claim, our administration is understood to 
have made official demands on Spain for a part of West Florida, 
as if it belonged to Louisiana. They are also said to have made 
an official appeal for support in this claim to Bonaparte's ministry. 
From neither quarter did they obtain the satisfaction desired, ow- 
ing to considerations to be mentioned under the next head. Thus 
disappointed in its negociations, our administration next resorted 
to arms, and took military possession of the parts of West Florida 
in question, — intimating, however, that it might quit them again, 
if Spain should show a better title. 

In this position, the affair, at this moment, rests : that is, wo 
have made an unfounded demand, and we have seized and still 
hold the object of it, in spite of remonstrance. 
* See note B. at the end. 



14 

VII. >An account of the motive for ceding Louisiana to Spain 
in 1762, with the details and consequences of that cession. 

As it may have seemed extraordinary, that France should hj^ye- 
niade a present of Louisiana to Spain, and the transaction is im- 
portant to the present dispute, we shall give the necessary state- 
ment of it in this place. 

Louis XIV. of France, the third sovereign of the Bourbon fam- 
ily,* succeeded in placing his grandson Philip (duke of Anjou) on 
the throne of Spain ; and this S/ianish branch of the Bourbons suc- 
ceeded also in giving sovereigns to Naples and to Parma. Hence 
Louis XV. of France took occasion to conclude a treaty with 
Spain, with a view to unite all the Bourbon sovereigns, which 
treaty was dated Aug. 15, 1761, and was called « The family com- 
iidct of the Bourbons" an opening being left in it for the acces- 
sion of Naplest and Parma. 

By this treaty it was agreed " whoever attacked one crown at- 
tacked the other." On this ground, Spain soon joined France in 
the war she was then maintaining against Great Britain. But 
Spain quickly losing the Havanna and Cuba to Great Britain, 
France became convinced by this and other circumstances, that it 
was for the interest of both to bring the war to an immediate ter- 
mination.— But now another principle came into play, for it had 
been agreed in the above family compact, that when France and 
Spain should terminate by peace the war they should have suffer- 
ed in common, they would balance the advantages which one of 
the two powers might have received against the losses of the oth- 
er ; so thai (in the conditions of peace, as in the operations of war) 
the two nionarchs of France and Spain throughout the extent of 

* France reckons three great races of kings ; namel}', the Merovingian, 
beginning, as some say, with Clovis in 481 ; the Carlovingian, beginning 
with Pepin in 751 ; and the Capetian, beginning with Hugh Capet in 987. 
Ilemy III. ended the line of Valois under the Cr.petian race and was suc- 
ceeded inyl589 by the famous Henry IV. who was also of the Capetian 
race but of the Bourbon family. He began the Boiirbon dynasty, and, add- 
ing the kingdom of Navarre to that of France, he was called kmg of France 
and Mavarre, which title was home by his descendants Louis XIII. XIV. 
XV. XVI. XVII. (who died a child and prisoner to his subjects) and XVIH. 
(who is just placed on his throne.) . 

■\ In this treaty the king of Naples is called king of the Two Sicilies, a 
title repeatedly given to the king of Naples, v.hile possessed of the two 
Sicilies. 



15 

iheir empire, should be considered and would act, as if they formed 
but one and the same fiower.* But, notwithstanding this condi- 
tion, it so happened, when the peace of 1762 — 3 was ncgociated, 
that France possessed no balance of advantages to sacrifice to Eng- 
land, in order to procure for Spain the I'cstoratiou of the Havan- 
na and Cuba. France, therefore, determined to give up one of 
her own nnconquered territories in order to buy such a peace for 
Spain, and this territory was Louisiana, which then crossed the 
Mississippi to the east. This was to be made over to Spain on 
condition of her joining with France in a transfer to England of 
every thing lying to the east of the Mississippi, England having 
consented to receive the territory thus bounded, as the equivalent 
for her Spanish conquests. France having no other motive what- 
ever for this great sacrifice, it appears to have been agreed with 
the Spanish negociator at Paris, that i\\e formal offer of Louisiana 
to his own court should take place through himself on the very 
day (November 3, 1762) when this tract of country was offered to 
England. — Two circumstances rendered this a secure proceed- 
ing ; for, first, France merely offered (but did not at that time 
cede) Louisiana to Spain ; and, next, even the cession of Florida 
to England was open to recall (the preliminaries of the peace be- 
ing made subject to ratification.) In the event, however, the whole 
transaction became established, by the acceptance of Louisiana, 
under its new limits, on the part of Spain, on the 1 3th November, 
1763, and also by a ratification of the preliminaries with England, 
on the 22d of the same month. t 

Hence it appears that these were not merely contemporary but 
connected transactions ; all being to be established together or all 
to be rejected together. All, however, being established togeth- 
er, the acceptance of Louisiana is to be considered as operating 
back to the date of the offer of it ; while the ratification of the pre- 

* For a copy of the Treaty or Family Compact of the House of Bourbon 
(Facte de Famllle de la Maison de Bourbon) see Chalmer's Collection ot" 
Treaties, I. 552, Debrett's Collection, III. 70, or Almon's Remembrancer for 
1778, the original, in the last case, accompanying- the ti'anslation. 

\ For the date of the acceptance of the offer of Louisiana, see Louis X\ 's 
letter to Mons. D' Abbadie in Mr. EUicotts Journal, p. [128] or in the An- 
nual Register for 1765, p. [271.] — For the date of the ratification oftlie pre- 
liminaries of 1762, see the Annxial Register for 1762, p. [108] 



x^ 



16 

liminaries equally extends back to the date of signing them.* T» 
dispute this, would in nothing vary the issue of the discussion, foP 
the definitive treaty by being signed after the date of the accep- 
tance of Louisiana, rendered valid the cession to England of the 
surplus part of Louisiana (namely, that part lying to the east of 
the Mississippi and the Iberville.) If the private cession of Lou- 
isiana to Spain had failed for want of the due formalities, the trea- 
ty alone would have substantiated the transfer of this surfilus part ; 
for the claims of France and Spain together (which covered the 
whole country) were fairly made over to England. It is true, that 
neither France nor Spain named the Floridas in their deeds of ces- 
sion; but they described the territory in such clear terms, as would 
have conveyed it, had it reached even to the eastern hemisphere ; 
both governments used similar descriptions ; and both afterwards 
acted as if their descriptions had been effectual. Nor were the 
United States of a different opinion, till they became possessed of 
Louisiana. 

What is thus directly proved by the treaty of 1762 — 3, is con- 
firmed by other circumstances, of which a part have already been 
mentioned. For example. If it be true, that the cession of Lou- 
isiana made by Fi-ance to Spain in 1762 was designed to preserve 
the P^loridas intire in order to be given intire to England ; the par- 
ties would not at such a moment have loaded the territory east of 
the Mississippi with new claims of so transitory a nature, that the 
treaty must instantly extinguish them ; for whether this part of 
Louisiana rested with France or with Spain, each abandoned its 
separate title and guaranteed the cession. The British, likewise 
(according to Mr. ElUcou's account) came into actual possession 
of the Floridas close up to the Mississippi, immediately after this 
treaty of 17-62 — 3, without exciting the jealousy either ©f France 
or of Spain. France, likewise, was equally silent, when Spain a- 
dopted the British names and the British division of the two Flo- 
ridas in 1783. The same acquiescence was seen in France in 
1795, when Spain and the United States concurred in tracing their 
common boundary in this quarter to the very bank of the Missis- 

* A r.itlficution, according" to the course of proceedings in modern times, 
beings a mere confirmation by a principal of %vhat is done by a political a- 
gent, the original instrument, (of which the date commonly makes a very 
important part) holds in its oricrinal form from the moment of its ratijica- 

fion. 



17 

«ippi.* When Spain, also, in 1800, relinquished Louisiana and 
New-Orleans to Bonaparte, that greedy man omitted to hint, that 
he had any title to the Western part of West Florida as an appen- 
dage to the cession. Lastly, when Bonaparte sold Louisiana and 
New-Orleans in 1803, to the United States, he expressly declared, 
that these possessions were to be held by the United States only 
as the Rejiublick of France itself had received them from Spain. 

Such are the confirmations of the general fact, that, after 1762-3, 
Louisiana and New-Orleans were separated from the two Floridas 
by the Mississippi, and that it is in this form only that we now 
ought to hold them. 



OBSERVATIONS 

ON THE PRECEDING FACTS AND ARGUMENTS. 

From the statements in our introduction and the seven heads 
which have followed it, we venture to affirm, that Louisiana, in the 
hands of Spain after the treaty of 1763, did not cross the Missis- 
sippi; and that whatever Spain held there, which was not Louisi- 
ana and JVciv-Orleans, was part of the Floridas ; the Mississippi 
lying between the two tracts of country, like a gulf not to be 
passed. 

This question, argued politically, has offered no difficulties. — 
Nor would it experience any if tried according to the principles of 
common law. Where there are various claimants to a real es- 
tate, is it not known that we may still obtain a solid title by receiving 
a conveyance under warranty of all the claims of acll the claimants, 
united in one deed, in face of each other, and for a valuable consid- 
eration ? And such a conveyance was made by the two sole pre- 
tenders to the ceded territory in 1762 — 3, and that cession was 
held so sound that one of the pretenders afterwards adopted the ti- 
tle, thus given to it, for her own use, and the consideration, namely, 

* The acquisition of the t\ro Floridas promised a grand and simple out- 
line for the British possessions on the Xorth American continent at this pe- 
riod. To the North stood the Frozen Ocean — to the East the Atlantic — to 
the South the Gulf of Mexico — and to the West the jSIississippi : hut these 
were boundaries, which Great Britain knew not how to retain long-er than 
from 1763 to 1776. 



18 

Western or modern Louisiana rcrnaitled in the hands of Spain for 
thirty-eight years, and was then bartered away by Spain to France 
the do7ior of it. 

Still further. The title to the Floridas, which is thus consolidat- 
ed, and which, as v/e have shewn, has been first warranted, and 
then confirmed by two successive ratifications^ carries its date as 
far back as 1762-3, thereby adding tlie firescrifitive title of above 
half a century to the legal title. 

If all this be true, what (it will naturally be demanded) has our 
administration to offer in vindication of its measure ? As our ad- 
ministration appears to have published nothing official on this sub- 
ject. It becomes us to consider what can be said in favour of its 
conduct on this occasion, and then to make the necessary replies. 

1st. It may be urged on behalf of our administration, that a pur-- 
chaser has a right to look into his tide-deeds, and to take advantage 
of what he finds in them ; and that, as, in ancient times, Louisiana 
crossed the Mississippi to the east, it is open to us to adopt the 
more extensive boundary. But, whatever a power, tenacious like 
Spain, and sagacious like France, has in turn overlooked, since 
1762, while it held the property in question, may be suspected as 
worthy of little attention on our side. Each knew, as every poli- 
tician and lawyer does, that the best titles, by subsequent deeds, 
become liable to limitations ; that such limitations, in the present 
instance, took place in 1762-3 ; and that we must abide by the effect 
of them. If France, indeed, in 1803, had thought that she had 
more land to sell than lay on the western side of the Mississippi, 
she might have asked more for the bargain than fifteen millions 
of dollars. 

2d. It may be said, that the treaties of J 800 and 1803 positively 
declare, that Louisiana is now to be held " in the same extent, 
that it had, when France possessed it," (that is, under its mon- 
archs.) These Vv'ords, however, are followed by others, which 
create limitations to this " extent," for the extent is said to be 
" such as it should be [or ought to be] after the treaties subse- 
quently entered into between Spain and other states " These are 
words not to be silently passed over, as usually has happened in 
this controversy, since they have an important meaning. We 
shail instantly demonstrate this,f after observing, first, that the 
word " subsequently," signifies " after the time, when France 
gave ii/i the territory ;" and, next, that the words " other states," 



19 

may relate to any foreign state except France^ with whoni this 
agreement was made.* 

We maintain, then, that, subsequently to the time when France 
held Louisiana (under its monarchs) Spain has made at least two 
treaties with other states; one of cession to England in 1762-3, 
and another of arrangement with ourselves in 1795 — that by the 
first the boundaries of the two Floridas were formed^ and by the 
second they were acknowledged — and that the Mississippi was 
made their west em limit. Of consequence, the Mississippi be- 
comes the eastern counter-limit of Louisiana. Louisiana to the 
•west was diiferently circumstanced, since it could not be the sub- 
ject of treaty with other states, as being bounded solely by other 
Spanish possessions. We may now, then, begin to discover the 
opposite design of each of the clauses. The Jirst stated, that 
Bonaparte was to receive Louisiana (that is to the west) as 
France held it during its monarchy, without any regard to altera- 
tions of its shape, produced by mere colonial regulations on the 
part of Spain. The second clause was designed to secure to 
Spain the boundaries which it had both given to England and re- 
cei-ved back from England, as the western limit of the Floridas. 
It was, also, calculated to esiablish various concessions made to 
the United States in 1795, and thus to maintain the reputation of 
Spain for dignity and good faith : — and on this ground ihe United 
Slates, in fact, appealed to it in their disputes with France between 
1800 and 1803, in cases, which bore relation to it. We have thus 
interpreted the two clauses in perfect consistence with each other, 
which it will be found difficult to do upon any other plan, as will 
be experienced by those who make the trial. Upon our interpre- 
tion, it is easy to understand, what that Louisiana is, which Spain 
lately held, which she yielded to Bonaparte, which Bonaparte sold 
to the United States, and which corresponds to her treaties with 
other Slates. Bonaparte, indeed, well knew, that France and Spain 
had joined in reducing the claims of Louisiana to the east, for the 
purpose of making room for the extension of Florida to the west ; 
since this was a fundamental object in the treaty and the proceed- 
ings of 1762-3, both with Spain and with France. 

* It will be remembered tiiat tliese*clauses belong to the original tre.ity 
between Bonaparte and Spain, and appear in the treaty between Bonapartg 
and us merely by way of recital. 



20 

Probably, these are the only specious arguments, on this sub- 
ject, to be urp;td on the side of our administration. However, to 
give our government every chance of being justified, we shall no- 
tice three other grounds of defence; though they arc of very infe- 
rior value. 

1. It majr Ue said, that the French negociators gave it to be un- 
derstood -verbally that a. cession of Louisiana, according to its old 
limits, was intended, not only to the west, but to the cant. To 
this no other remark need be made than that the words of the 
treaty (as they stand ratified on both sides) are alone to be at- 
tended to. In private deeds the language of the negociating 
agents is rarely appealed to ; but, in publick proceedings, this is 
out of the question ; — first, because the ceremony of the ratifica- 
tion takes the construction oi a publick treaty out of the hands of 
its negociators, and, next, because were this sort of evidence en- 
couraged, it might introduce great uncertainty and intrigue into 
negociations of the utmost national importance. This, therefore, 
is an argument destitute of weight in theory, and is, also, said to 
iiavc been found wanting in efficacy in practice. 

2. Some muy take a fancy to admit, that the title to Louisiana 
given to Spain in 1762-3 was, in truih, only partial, in order to as- 
sert, as a consequence of this, that France had a right to sell to 
us the rest of Louisiana in I8U3. But, the contrivance is useless 
liince Bonaparte's treaty of 1803 expressly declares, that he sold 
us onlv what the Frencli rcimblick had acquired from Spain by 
the sjiec>jick \xc^\.Y of 1800. Besides, what rescrvalions could 
France have made in 4 762-3, ^'hen, in one and the same breath, 
she gave Louisiana to Spain, and joined Spain in a treaty, where- 
by each gave to tugland whatever it possessed or was entitled to 
cast of the IMississippi. 

3. Oiiicr persons may say, that our administration was entitled 
to take advantage of the co7iJusion in Sjianish affairs, and thence 
to ai,_snme the western pans of West Florida. But, we reply, that 
the claims of our administration on these parts were made before 
this confusion, on grounds totally indfepcndent on this circumstance. 

According to our tiilc-pagv.. therciore, we continue to affirm, 
that the mistake made by our government on the subject now be- 
fore us, is a dangerous mistake, for Spain considers our preten- 
sions as l'o«ndt;d on sopisisiry in words, whore there was an evident 
perspicuity in sense, and iiiat we arc in fuct moved by a love of 



21 

plunder and a desire to take advantage of the weak. Appearances, 
as to these subjects, are certainly against us, and such conduct 
threatens us with dangers from various quarters. For instance, 
it is dangerous to seize a territory by arms, under pretence, that 
we shall give it up, if we find the seizure wrong. Ii is dangerous 
to attempt to secure objects of this kind by fomenting insurrec- 
tions; a proceeding which is laid lo our charge, not only iicre, but 
in East Florida. It is dangerous also, to excite the jealousy of 
such powers as are jointly interested in ivaiching the temper of 
our government, particularly on the subject of extension of terri- 
tory.* Lastly, the plan of accumulating extensive territory is dan- 
gerous as regards ourselves, especially wiien associated with the 
principle of forming new states beyond our original limits, which 
are to become members of our General Union. 

But we may properly, and with some satisfaction, close our in- 
quiry in this place with some short remarks as to the views and 
temper pursued in it. First, we have neither touched on the pow- 
er of Bonaparte to assume Louisiana, nor, when it was once assum- 
ed, to sell it again. Next, we have not blamed the purchase of 
Louisiana, even with an uncertain title, for this purchase gave us 
a temporary peace, without inconvenience or dishonour, and at a 
small comparative expense. Thirdly, we pretend to no sha^e in 
dictating future proceedings. Lastly, we have avoided every harsh 
insinuation, indelicate expression, or criminating conclusion, being 
content with solid facts, and plain arguments, expressed in civil 
language, wit!iout regard to party. If there be any, who wish to 
see considerations ol Jirudcnce taken into account along with those 



* Upon consulting' our maps, we shall perceive, that tlie next subject of 
alarm to the courts of Europe, on account of our movements in Louisiana, 
will be the mines for pi'ecious metals, in Mexico and Peru ; mines, which 
for ages have formed tlie chief supply of these articles for the whole world. 
Even in the shape of coin, there is no civilized country, from England to 
China, from the north pole to the south, where the Spanish doUai- is not 
known. Many reflecting men have long remarked on tlie good fortime of 
mankind at having these means of formidable enterprize in the safe keeping 
of tlie quiet, liarmless Spaniai-ds of modern times ; and even the ]>hilanthro- 
pists, so called, living out of the bounds of tlie United States, would scarce- 
ly vote that these magazines of misOTief should be subject to the command 
of our bold and speculating nation. Eveiy honest Americ.n mu.st hiu.self 
dread the result. 



22 

of right and of justice, we reply, that this is a subject into which 
we shall no fui'ther enter than has been done in the preceding para- 
graph. Prudent men will find enough to reflect upon there ; and 
to speak to others, might be useless at the present moment, or 
may be left to other persons. 



POSTCRIPT. 

There aie several short views to be taken of the matters dis- 
cussed in the foregoing pages, which may claim a place here. 

For example : We may treat our subject under the form of an 
alternative, by considering all the several shapes which the question 
may be made to take, and adopting that, which seems most reasona- 
ble. Thus we may say, that the western parts of West Florida 
belonged either to France singly, or to Spain singly, or else to both, 
or else to neither. But the preliminary treaty gave them to Eng- 
land, whether they belonged to France w'lolly, or in part, or to 
Spain wholly, or in part, since it gave to England all to the east 
of the Mississippi belonging to either of them. The critical part 
of the gift was Spanish, if the cession of Louisiana had taken ef- 
fecti^ otherwise it was French. This general gift by each was re- 
peated in the same form, or still more distinctly, by the dejintive 
treaty of 1763, ninety days after Spain had accepted the Louisiana 
cession. And since each act of transfer was ratified, the conclusion 
can admit of no doubt. England was quickly put into possession, 
while France did not even issue the order for putting Spain into 
possession, till April 21, 1764 ; and the acts of taking possession, 
slowly followed.* The above reasoning, we think, holds good, 

* England was in possession before Oct. 7, 1763, if we are to judg'e by 
her proclamation of that date, issued by advice of the privy council, and 
founded on letters patent ibr org'anizing the government of the new colonies. 
We may at least conclude, that England saw no difficulty, at that date, 
likely to attend the act of taking possession of East and West Florida, be- 
ginning the latter from the Mississippi ; and history relates none, except 
as regarded the Indians of the interior (against whom European govern- 
ments, as well as our own, have often made expeditions, within tlie limits 
of territories long held after the usual! manner). But we do not mean to 
say, that titles cannot pass without possession accompanying them. Such 
.' doctrine would desti-oy our ov/n claim to Louisiana, acquired by the treaty 



supposing either France or Spain concerned in the property iu 
question. But if neither was the proprietor, we then come to the 
last branch of our dilemma, and may affirm, that by common rules, 
England had a right to assume it as vacant territory, and to grant 
it afterwards to Spain, who, therefore, may still be supposed to 
hold it under the British title which she has found so useful to her. 

To the above summary mode of treating the question, we shall 
add a second in the form of a simjile statement. We affirm, then, 
that France was to offer, and Spain to accept, Louisiana, on condi- 
tion that England should receive a portion of it. As both France : 
and Spain held territory to the eastward of the Mississippi, the 
form used for the cession to England answered not only for the 
eastern part of Louisiana (by whichever of them it was held) but 
also for Florida. Before the preliminary or rough draught of the 
treaty of 1762-3 was ratified, Spain accepted the cession of Lou- 
isiana, and consequently she accepted it with the limits given to it 
by this draught. The definitive or corrected copy of this treaty, 
containing the same limitations, (except that they were rendered 
still more precise) confirmed this consent of Spain to the meas- 
ure. Possession was taken in consequence, and was so held by 
England or by Spain for nearly half a century, till Spain was de- 
prived of it by force. It will be difficult in a disputed case to re- 
ceive a more simple and satisfactory solution than that here given. 

The impressions to be made by these short representations will 
be increased by observing, that there are three defects in every 
defence which has been paade publick in support of the conduct 
of our administration. 

First defect. No reason is offered for the cession of Louisiana 
by France to Spain. This cession was made neither to induce 

of April 30, 1803 ; for the late Major Amos Stoddard tells us, that Lo-wcr 
Louisiana was not surrendered by Spain to Bonaparte's agent, till early in 
December, 1803. He himself, as he adds, was " the constituted agent of tlie 
French republick in Upper Louisiana, and in her name, received possession 
of that province the 9th day of March, 1804, and the next day transferred 
it to the United States." See his book, in the preface, and at page 102. 
His mistake as to the date of the first possession obtained by the English 
in the Floridas (which he places in 1764) is, in efiect, answered by the vari- 
ous facts stated in this note, not to say, that possession may have been tak- 
en by England of different parts of the two Floridas successively. He will 
be evidence, however, for the tardy possession of Louisiana taken by Spain 
under the act of cession from France 



24 ^ 

Spain to enter ifito the family compact, nor into the war with Eng- 
land, for she had already adopted both, but to provide means for 
terminating the wary in the manner stated above. Second defect. 
No motive can be assigned, but that which we have assigned for 
the reference to foreign treaties made in the treaty of 1800. Third 
defect. No attempt has been made to explain, why France allow- 
ed Spain to express her cession to England as beginning from the 
Mississippi, when Spain might have described it as beginning 
from the Atlantick and going westward^ till it met the possessions 
of France in Louisiana. But, on the supposition, that France had 
given up Louisiana to Spain, all the jealousy of France as to the 
claims of Spain towards the Mississippi would of course cease. 

These defects are important, and the two first are of an amount 
to be fatal to any cause, and especially to a cause which is weakly 
supported by arguments of a positive description. 



25 



NOTES. 

JVotea A. and B. refc-rred to in the preceding remarks^ m ivhich 
farther proofs nuill afifiear that J^ew Orleans may be considered 
as an island formed by the Mississippi. 

Note A. See p. 9. 

West Florida was thus bounded by the proclamation of George 
III. viz. " To the southward by the Gulf of Mexico (including all 
islands within six leagues of the coast from the Apalachicola to 
lake Pontchartrain) ; to the westward, by the said lake, the lake 
Maurepas and the river Mississippi ; to the northward^ by a line 
drawn due east from that part of the river Mississippi, which lies 
in 31° N. lat. to the river Apalachicola (or Catahouche) ; and to 
the eastward by the said river." See Ann. Register for 1763, 
p. [209.] 

If this copy of the proclamation be correct, it appears that in 
the western boundary the Iberville was considered by England as 
a leg of the Mississippi ; as the Mississippi originally formed the 
bed of the Iberville, at least in its upper part ; and at that part also 
it wholly supplies it with whatever streams it at any time possesses. 

Were we to give any other interpretation to the*oundary, as 
thus proclaimed, it would strike off part of the island of New-Or- 
leans, which would be contrary to design, to treaties, to the pro- 
ceedings which followed under the proclamation, and to the gen- 
eral good understanding, which continued long after to subsist be- 
tween Great Britain on one side and France and Spain on the 
other. 

We observe, moreover, in general as to the bounds here given, 
that England had a right to make them and to vary them, as she 
pleased, in all directions ; the country now possessed by the Unit- 
ed States in these quarters being then all her own. But, it will 
be observed, at the same time, that she adhered to the northern 
lines marked out in the proclamation, when she came to a settle- 



26 

ment of the boundaries of the United States : the effect of which 
was to communicate the same boundaries to the northern part of 
the two Floridas, when soon after ceded to Spain ; boundaries, as 
we have seen, which were mutually acceded to, in 1795, by our- 
selves and by Spain, as proposed by England, and to which the 
southern boundaries of necessity correspond. 



Note B. See p. 13. 

Manshack stands immediately to the north of the point, at which 
the Iberville takes its departure out of the Mississippi to go 
through the lakes connected with it to the sea. Mr. Ellicottdoes 
not, in fact, however, treat the Iberville as a leg of the Mississippi 
throughout the year ; yet he speaks thus of it for a fiart of the 
year. " During the annual inundation [of the Mississippi] a con- 
siderable stream of water called the Bayou Manshack* or Iber- 
ville leaves the Mississippi at Manshack, and, after joining the 
Amit, falls into lake Maurepas, thence into Pontchartrain, and 
communicates with the Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of Pearl 
(or Half-way) river. During t!ie passage of the water along this 
channel. New Orleans stands upon an island, which may be con- 
sidered as the Delta cf the Mississi/ifii. This channel might be 
i"er.dered navigable for boats during the inundation by removing 
tlie limber and' rulibish, with which it is, at present, choaked up." 
Were this done, Mr. Ellicott conceives it would afford a much 
easier and cheaper conveyance, than that by the way of New Or- 
leans. For the rest see Mr. Ellicott's Journal, p. [124, 125.] 

As to the phrase '• Delta of the Missibsippi," it refers to the isl- 
and formed between the outer legs of the Egyptian Nile at its 
mouth and the sea ; this island resembling the Greek letter A (or 
delta). Whatever, therefore, in certain respects, may be said of 
the one delta may be said of the other ; that is, both arc islands 
(we mean so long as the Iberville has water in it). It is true, that 
the late Major Stoddard has called " all the Low Couritry between 
ihe stdi and the elevated grounch" near the lower parts of the 
Mississippi, by the name of the Delta, paying no regard to the 
legs of the Missiusipi)i ; but this is contrary to the common ac- 

* Satjou Mcnishach sig-nifi^i the cliaiMiel or passage of 3V|anShack. 



27 

•eptation of the word Delta with geographers and others. Mr. 
Ellicott certainly adopts a difFerent sense for the word in question, 
and with this only we claina concern. 



MEMORANDUM. 



On the subject of this dispute respecting the title of the United 
States to the western parts of West Florida, see the following 
publications. **' 

1. A newspaper publication signed Ferus, which was much 
circulated, when the subject of the above controversy first became 
publick. ^^ , , . V' ' '. 

2. » The Impartial Inquirer, being a candid examination of the 
conduct of the President of the United States in execution of the 
powers vested in him by the Act of Congress of May 1, 1810, to 
which are added some reflections on the invasion of the Spanish 
territory of West Florida, by a citizen of Massachusetts.' Printed 
by Russel and Cutler, Boston, 1810. 

. 3. ' Reflections on the cession of Louisiana to the United States, 
by Sylvestris,' printed in 1803, by Mr. Samuel Harrison Smith of 
Washington ; the printer of the Universal Gazette, a newspaper 
employed by Mr. Jefferson for his official communications to the 
publick. "^ 

4. The respective Memorials or Reports of Mr. Livingston and 
of several committees in Congress, recommending the purchase, 
First, of Louisiana and, Then, of the Floridas, with the various 
acts and journals of Congress on the subject of these territories, 
and on the occupation of the Floridas. 

'6. Sketches, historical and descriptive, of Louisiana, by the late 
Major Amos Stoddard, Philadelphia, 1812. 

6. Mr. Andrew EUicott's work noticed above. 

7. For authorities concerning the fruitless negociations between 
England on one side, and France and Spain respectively on the 



28 

other, see Debrett's Collection of Treaties, vol. III. p. 80— .166, 
and the Annual Register for 1762, p. [185—203.] 

Most of these articles are known or supposed to come from 
persons who had, in some respects, the means of speaking from 
official sources on the subjefcts in question. 

The dates of some of tli^^se pieces merit regard, as shewing the 
impressions of the writers of tae moment. 



# 




^1 10 7 "89 H 




A Ok 










HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. 

<^^ NOV 89 

^^W' N. MANCHESTER, 
^ ^ INDIANA 46962 









5^r 



46962 j / ^V ^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 544 204 7 



